Home » Film & TV » Military Movies » The Media and The Vietnam War, Part I

The Media and The Vietnam War, Part I

© John Lovett

This is a two part series. The subject of Part I is the relationship of the media and the military and its changes as a consequences of the Vietnam War. The subject of Part II is why this relationship has changed and what is the future of this relationship.

Something that has been wandering around the back of my brain for the last few months has been a comment H. P. Wilmott made during a speech at Fort Leavenworth, KS in 1984. Wilmott was the New York Times war correspondent from 1939 until his retirement in 1985. A long career that spanned some three major and many minor wars, he was extremely knowledgeable of how the press and military co - habitated a violent world. Seemingly at odds most of the time, he was able to make these two worlds work together. In 1984, I had the honor of escorting the man around Ft. Leavenworth and the Command and General Staff College (CGSC). His purpose being there of making a speech to the officers of CGSC.

Once he had finished a fairly refined, and rehearsed, speech, he let the session open to questions. Instead of politely asked questions from the assembled officers regarding Wilmott's experiences in World War II, there came a series of vitriolic questions regarding the relationship of the press and the military during the Vietnam War. Wilmott answered each of these questions politely and concisely.

One of things he did say was that while the visual media (read TV) had presented an anti - war posture, particularly after Walter Cronkite had made his "we are losing the war" comment during Tet 1968, the print media had continued a seemingly "pro" war posture until the early 1970's. I am not so sure about the print media in that regard, but I am sure that the tone of American media reporting of and American motion picture portrayal of the Vietnam War was, at best, lukewarm and, at worst, obviously against our involvement in that war.

Why was this, I wonder? The American press had been "gung - ho" during World War II and Korea. The interpretation prevalent within the military after 1975 was that the military did not control the press like it had during the previously two mentioned wars. Therefore, the press showed what they wanted and not what was so - called good for the military and the American people. The consequences of that thinking was the intense press scrutiny by the military during the Grenada Invasion and Desert Storm. However, I think the military drew on false thinking to arrive at a false conclusion.